GARLETT -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 72
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2000] WASCA 72 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:171/1999 | 3 NOVEMBER 1999 | |
| Coram: | PIDGEON J WALLWORK J ANDERSON J | 21/03/00 | |
| 34 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal against refusal to make parole eligibility order dismissed Leave to appeal against order for indefinite detention granted Appeal dismissed | ||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | DONALD WAYNE GARLETT THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Sexual offences Sentencing Appeal Multiple offences Multiple complainants Parole eligibility Principles Nature and purpose of parole Protection of community Capacity to benefit from parole Indefinite sentence Principles Exceptional circumstances Serial rapist Mental illness Relevance of antecedent criminal history |
Legislation: | Criminal Code s 662(a) Sentencing Act 1995 s 89, s 93, s 98 |
Case References: | Archibald v R (1989) 40 A Crim R 228 Chester v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 611 Deakin v The Queen (1984) 58 ALJR 367 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 73 ALJR 1007 Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 29; (1999) 73 ALJR 1007 Malec v J C Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638 McGarry v The Queen [1999] WASCA 276 Moffatt (1997) 91 A Crim R 557 Plenty v Argus [1975] WAR 155 Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623 Thompson v R (1993) 8 WAR 387 Thompson v The Queen (1993) 8 WAR 387 Thompson v The Queen [1999] HCA 43 Tunaj v R [1984] WAR 48 Australian Coal & Shale Employees' Federation v Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621 Brown v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 960445; 6 August 1996 Bugmy v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 525 Colbung v The Queen [1999] WASCA 138 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 Jones v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980246; 8 May 1998 Klavins v The Queen [1999] WASCA 37 Nevermann (1989) 43 A Crim R 347 R v Dunstan, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 990074; 19 February 1999 Rogers & Murray (1989) 44 A Crim R 301 Stewart v The Queen [1999] WASCA 7 Thompson v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980600; 19 October 1998 Veen v R (No 2) (1988) 77 ALR 385 Weng Keong Chan (1989) 38 A Crim R 337 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : GARLETT -v- THE QUEEN [2000] WASCA 72 CORAM : PIDGEON J
- WALLWORK J
ANDERSON J
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Sexual offences - Sentencing - Appeal - Multiple offences - Multiple complainants
Parole eligibility - Principles - Nature and purpose of parole - Protection of community - Capacity to benefit from parole
Indefinite sentence - Principles - Exceptional circumstances - Serial rapist - Mental illness…
Continue reading Garlett v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Garlett v The Queen [2000] WASCA 72
- Case
- [2000] WASCA 72
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Garlett v The Queen, the appellant, a convicted rapist, appealed against the refusal of the sentencing court to make an order that he be eligible for parole. The appeal also contested the order for his indefinite detention. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the sentencing court's decision was appropriate and whether the appellant's indefinite detention was justified.
The court considered several legal issues, including the principles governing parole eligibility in cases of multiple offences and multiple complainants, the nature and purpose of parole, and the criteria for determining an offender's capacity to benefit from parole. The court also examined the principles applicable to indefinite sentencing and whether there were exceptional circumstances that warranted such a sentence. The appellant's mental illness and antecedent criminal history were also factors considered by the court.
The High Court found that the sentencing court's refusal to make a parole eligibility order was not an error. The court concluded that the appellant's extensive criminal history, including multiple sexual offences against multiple complainants, justified the denial of parole eligibility. The court further held that the appellant's indefinite detention was warranted due to his dangerousness and the need to protect the community. The court dismissed the appeal against the refusal to make a parole eligibility order and granted leave to appeal against the order for indefinite detention. However, the appeal against the order for indefinite detention was ultimately dismissed, upholding the original sentencing decision.
The court considered several legal issues, including the principles governing parole eligibility in cases of multiple offences and multiple complainants, the nature and purpose of parole, and the criteria for determining an offender's capacity to benefit from parole. The court also examined the principles applicable to indefinite sentencing and whether there were exceptional circumstances that warranted such a sentence. The appellant's mental illness and antecedent criminal history were also factors considered by the court.
The High Court found that the sentencing court's refusal to make a parole eligibility order was not an error. The court concluded that the appellant's extensive criminal history, including multiple sexual offences against multiple complainants, justified the denial of parole eligibility. The court further held that the appellant's indefinite detention was warranted due to his dangerousness and the need to protect the community. The court dismissed the appeal against the refusal to make a parole eligibility order and granted leave to appeal against the order for indefinite detention. However, the appeal against the order for indefinite detention was ultimately dismissed, upholding the original sentencing decision.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal against refusal to make parole eligibility order dismissed
Leave to appeal against order for indefinite detention granted
Appeal dismissed
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.